Supervised exercise with or without laser-guided feedback for people with non-specific chronic low back pain. A randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Among the most effective therapeutic interventions in non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP), clinical practice guidelines highlight exercise therapy and patient education; However, regarding the combined intervention of exercise and Pain Neuroscience Education (PNE), there is no consensus on the most effective form of exercise. OBJETIVE: To find out what changes occurred after the application of two exercise modalities [Supervised Exercise (SE) and Laser-Guided Exercise (LGE)] and PNE on pain, pain pressure thresholds, disability, catastrophizing, kinesiophobia and lumbar proprioception in subjects with NSCLBP. METHODS: Single-blind randomized clinical controlled trial. 60 subjects with NSCLBP. Both groups performed a a total of 16 therapeutic exercise sessions and 8 Pain Neuroscience Education sessions. With the Laser-Guided Exercise Therapy group performing laser-guided exercises. RESULTS: A significant decrease was observed for pain intensity for both groups between baseline and post-intervention and the 3 month follow-up (p < 0.001). There was a significant between-group difference between baseline and post-intervention scores in terms of pain intensity and kinesiophobia in favour of the LGE group. CONCLUSION: Supervised exercise with or without laser feedback, when combined with PNE, reduces pain intensity, disability, pain catastrophizing, kinesiophobia and improves proprioception and PPTs in patients with NSCLBP. At a 3-month follow-up, the combination of LGE plus PNE is most effective for reducing pain intensity.

A Sarcopenia Index Derived from Malnutrition Parameters in Elderly Haemodialysis Patients.

(1) Background: Persons with chronic kidney disease may have sarcopenia characterized by the loss of muscle mass and loss of muscle strength. However, EWGSOP2 criteria to diagnose sarcopenia are technically challenging, especially in elderly persons on hemodialysis. Sarcopenia may be associated with malnutrition. We aimed at defining a sarcopenia index derived from malnutrition parameters for use in elderly haemodialysis patients. (2) Methods: A retrospective study of 60 patients aged 75 to 95 years treated with chronic hemodialysis was conducted. Anthropometric and analytical variables, EWGSOP2 sarcopenia criteria and other nutrition-related variables were collected. Binomial logistic regressions were used to define the combination of anthropometric and nutritional parameters that best predict moderate or severe sarcopenia according to EWGSOP2, and performance for moderate and severe sarcopenia was assessed by the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. (3) Results: The combination of loss of strength, loss of muscle mass and low physical performance correlated with malnutrition. We developed regression-equation-related nutrition criteria that predicted moderate sarcopenia (elderly hemodialysis sarcopenia index-moderate, EHSI-M) and severe sarcopenia (EHSI-S) diagnosed according to EWGSOP2 with an AUC of 0.80 and 0.866, respectively. (4) Conclusions: There is a close relationship between nutrition and sarcopenia. The EHSI may identify EWGSOP2-diagnosed sarcopenia from easily accessible anthropometric and nutritional parameters.

Guía clínica española del acceso vascular para hemodiálisis / Spanish clinical guidelines on vascular access for haemodialysis

El acceso vascular para hemodiálisis es esencial para el enfermo renal tanto por su morbimortalidad asociada como por su repercusión en la calidad de vida. El proceso que va desde la creación y mantenimiento del acceso vascular hasta el tratamiento de sus complicaciones constituye un reto para la toma de decisiones debido a la complejidad de la patología existente y a la diversidad de especialidades involucradas. Con el fin de conseguir un abordaje consensuado, el Grupo Español Multidisciplinar del Acceso Vascular (GEMAV), que incluye expertos de las cinco sociedades científicas implicadas (nefrología [S.E.N.], cirugía vascular [SEACV], radiología vascular e intervencionista [SERAM-SERVEI], enfermedades infecciosas [SEIMC] y enfermería nefrológica [SEDEN]), con el soporte metodológico del Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano, ha realizado una actualización de la Guía del Acceso Vascular para Hemodiálisis publicada en 2005. Esta guía mantiene una estructura similar, revisando la evidencia sin renunciar a la vertiente docente, pero se aportan como novedades, por un lado, la metodología en su elaboración, siguiendo las directrices del sistema GRADE con el objetivo de traducir esta revisión sistemática de la evidencia en recomendaciones que faciliten la toma de decisiones en la práctica clínica habitual y, por otro, el establecimiento de indicadores de calidad que permitan monitorizar la calidad asistencial.

Vascular access for haemodialysis is key in renal patients both due to its associated morbidity and mortality and due to its impact on quality of life. The process, from the creation and maintenance of vascular access to the treatment of its complications, represents a challenge when it comes to decision-making, due to the complexity of the existing disease and the diversity of the specialities involved. With a view to finding a common approach, the Spanish Multidisciplinary Group on Vascular Access (GEMAV), which includes experts from the five scientific societies involved (nephrology [S.E.N.], vascular surgery [SEACV], vascular and interventional radiology [SERAM-SERVEI], infectious diseases [SEIMC] and nephrology nursing [SEDEN]), along with the methodological support.

Appendix to dialysis centre guidelines: recommendations for the relationship between outpatient haemodialysis centres and reference hospitals. Opinions from the Outpatient Dialysis Group. Grupo de Trabajo de Hemodiálisis Extrahospitalaria.

INTRODUCTION: The different clinical guidelines backed by the Spanish Society of Nephrology (SEN) attempt to homogenise the monitoring of renal patients. However, this effort to homogenise treatment has been obstructed in the case of renal replacement therapy patients on haemodialysis due to, among other reasons, the existence of several different dialysis providers, with private centres located in many cities, each with their own reference hospitals and different criteria for treatment based on the existing outsourcing services agreements with the public health service, which also differ between regions. A good relationship between a private dialysis centre and its reference hospital would lead to equal treatment for all dialysis patients, at least at that particular town. The SEN, through the efforts of the Grupo de Trabajo de Hemodiálisis Extrahospitalaria (Outpatient Haemodialysis Group), has prioritised a close relationship and good communication between reference hospitals and dialysis centres in order to guarantee proper continuity of the health care given to these patients. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVEMENT: Conditions for referring patients from one centre to another. A patient that starts a haemodialysis programme should be referred from a reference hospital with a definitive vascular access for optimising treatment, with a full report updated within 24-48 hours before the transferral, including essential information for providing proper nephrological treatment: primary pathology, recent viral serology (including hepatitis B and C virus [HBV and HCV] and human immunodeficiency virus [HIV]), parameters for anaemia and calcium-phosphorus metabolism, and ions, date of the first session of dialysis, and the number and dates of blood transfusions received. Furthermore, patients referred from the dialysis centre to the hospital, whether for programmed visits or emergency hospitalisation, should be accompanied by an updated report indicating the primary diagnoses, recent events, viral serology and laboratory analyses, updated haemodialysis and treatment regimens used, and the reason for transferral to the hospital. A single, digital clinical history that is accessible by both institutions would facilitate this situation, although this option is not completely available to all centres and hospitals. There are also legal issues to resolve in this aspect. Continued care for dialysis patients. Good communication between dialysis centres and hospitals is fundamental for achieving a proper level of care for dialysis patients, and not only with the nephrology department. The interconsultations of dialysis patients at each private centre, as well as the requests for diagnostic tests, should be able to be requested by the centre directly. The results and reports from these interconsultations should also be sent to the centre. It would also be best if the reference hospitals and their private dialysis centres shared common treatment protocols. These protocols should include basic aspects of the treatment of renal patients (anaemia, mineral metabolism, vascular accesses including catheter infections, etc., and laboratory tests), transplant protocols, complementary tests, and other components specific to each area. Not only would this generalise and unify the approach taken with dialysis patients regardless of where they are treated, it would also facilitate access to data on all patients regarding clinical trials and research studies. Access to medication. Dialysis patients require medications that are only given in the hospital setting, which is normally provided by the reference hospital, as per the agreement between institutions. It would also be recommendable that any other medications not included in the agreement (antibiotics, urokinase, nutritional supplements, etc.) be dispensed in a similar manner. Access to kidney transplant. The management of the transplant waiting list, once a patient starts renal replacement therapy, should be controlled from the dialysis centre, as in any other procedure. As such, the nephrologists from each centre should be familiar with the existing protocols and new developments in this context, and should participate in meetings with nephrology and urology departments in each hospital. The transplant protocol at each town/region should be followed for all patients, whether dialysis is undergone in a hospital or private centre. Characteristics of the work at dialysis centres. The doctor attending patients at each dialysis centre must be a specialist in nephrology. This complicated issue must be a requirement for agreements within the regional health system in order to guarantee a proper and equitable treatment of patients that receive dialysis in private centres. Only in the case of an absence of a nephrologist should a general practitioner be used, and this doctor must have adequate training in haemodialysis. This training should also be standardised. Over 75% of nephrologists that work at these centres are alone during the workday, and 40% never see another colleague during the whole shift. The administrators of these centres should seek out protocols that provide professional contact, both with the hospital staff and nephrologists from other centres, which would facilitate an exchange of ideas. Training. The nephrologists at each centre have the right and the obligation to perform research and to continuously expand their training, so as to develop and improve health care provision. Since the majority of patients in haemodialysis programmes are treated in outpatient centres that depend on reference hospitals, we might suggest a minimal rotation of nephrology residents in private outpatient dialysis centres, once accreditation has been given for providing this training.

Captores del fósforo: preferencias de los pacientes en hemodiálisis y su repercusión sobre el cumplimiento del tratamiento y el control del fósforo / Phosphorus binders: preferences of patients on haemodialysis and its impact on treatment compliance and phosphorus control

Introducción: En la actualidad disponemos de un amplio abanico de captores del fósforo (CF), pero sabemos poco acerca de las preferencias de los pacientes y de su repercusión sobre el cumplimiento del tratamiento y el control de los niveles de fósforo. Objetivo: Estudiar las preferencias y creencias de los pacientes respecto a los CF, y su influencia sobre el cumplimiento del tratamiento y el control de los niveles de fósforo. Pacientes y métodos: Estudio observacional transversal. Se incluyeron 121 pacientes que respondieron un cuestionario genérico de cumplimiento del tratamiento (SMAQ) y a un cuestionario específico sobre cumplimiento del tratamiento con CF, tipo de CF preferido y razones de dicha preferencia. Todos los pacientes entrevistados habían probado dos o tres CF. Las consecuencias de la falta de cumplimiento del tratamiento con CF se estimaron indirectamente analizando los valores promedio de fósforo sérico. Resultados: El 40% de los pacientes era incumplidor según el cuestionario SMAQ; se encontró una asociación estadísticamente significativa entre la falta de cumplimiento en general y no alcanzar el objetivo de fósforo sérico promedio <5,5 mg/dl (OR = 4,8; IC 95%, 1,0-6,6; p = 0,02). El 21,4% de los pacientes reconocía un incumplimiento específico para los CF; estos pacientes presentaban una mayor probabilidad de tener cifras medias de fósforo >5,5 mg/dl (OR = 4,7; IC 95%, 1,1-6,5; p = 0,03). Un 43,8% de los pacientes no refirió tener preferencias entre los diferentes tipos de CF; para el resto de pacientes, el CF preferido fue Royen(R), seguido de Fosrenol(R), Renagel(R) y Pepsamar(R). Las razones expresadas para el desagrado con el Renagel® fueron las siguientes: incomodidad en la toma por su gran tamaño (28,8%), necesidad de tomar muchos comprimidos y gran consumo de agua (57,7%) e intolerancia gástrica (13,3%). En el caso del Fosrenol(R) incómodo de tomar (72,7%) e intolerancia gástrica (27,2%); para el Pepsamar(R): mal sabor (54,5%) e intolerancia gástrica (45,4%). Sólo al 9,4% no le gustaba el Royen(R). Al analizar los conocimientos de los pacientes respecto a la utilidad de los CF, un 42% sabía que servían para controlar el fósforo; un 52% no lo sabía y un 6% tenía ideas equivocadas. En cuanto a su importancia: un 47% no conocía por qué son importantes; un 2% tenía ideas erróneas; un 9% creía que era beneficioso para la salud; un 11% creía que era bueno «porque lo dice el medico»; un 26% porque controla el fósforo y un 5% lo relacionaba con el hueso. Ningún paciente relacionó los CF con la enfermedad cardiovascular. Un 24,4% no se llevaba los CF cuando salía fuera de casa o estaba con los amigos; eran pacientes más jóvenes a quienes se les habían prescrito un mayor número de comprimidos de CF y que presentaban un mayor riesgo de no cumplir el objetivo de fósforo (OR = 10,5; IC 95%, -1,8 a -16,4; p <0,001). El porcentaje de pacientes a quienes no les gustaba el CF prescrito fue del 54,5%; dichos pacientes presentaban un mayor riesgo de tener niveles séricos de fósforo >5,5 mg/dl (OR = 13.3; IC 95%, 1,1-1,5; p = 0,0001). Paradójicamente, los pacientes que no cumplían con el tratamiento demostraban un mejor conocimiento de su uso (OR = 17,3; IC 95%, 2,2-10,1; p <0.0001) e importancia (OR = 10,4; IC 95%, 1,5-6,6; p = 0,001). Conclusión: Los pacientes a los que se les habían prescrito CF que no les gustaban tenían un peor control de los niveles de fósforo sérico y se les habían recomendado dosis más altas de los fármacos. El conocimiento de las preferencias de los pacientes acerca de las medicaciones que se les prescriben puede ser un factor esencial para conseguir un mayor cumplimiento del tratamiento y, por ende, lograr mejores resultados en la consecución de los objetivos terapéuticos (AU)

Introduction: Non-adherence to phosphate binding (PB) medication may play a role in the difficulty in achieving the targets for phosphorus. We have a wide spectrum of PB but preferences of patients are poorly understood. Objective: to study the patients’ preferences and beliefs regarding PB and their influence on adherence and serum phosphate. Methods: A cross-sectional cohort study was performed. A total of 121 hemodialysis patients answered a specific questionnaire in which they were questioned about adherence, the type of PB they preferred and the reasons for their choice. All patients questioned tasted two or three PB. The consequence of non-adherence to PB was estimated indirectly by determination of serum phosphorus. Results: Specific noncompliance with PB medication was recognized by 21.4% of patients. Patients non-adherent specifically to PB were more likely to have P levels >5.5 mg/dl (χ2: 4.7; 95% CI 1.07-6.5; p = 0.03). Paradoxically, non-adherent patients showed greater knowledge of the use (χ2: 17.3; 95% CI -2.2-10.1; p <0.0001) and importance of the drug (χ2: 10.4; 95% CI -1.5-6.6; p = 0.001). The percentage of patients prescribed binders that they did not like was 54.5%. Patients who were taking PB that they did not like had a greater risk of having P levels >5.5 mg/dl) (χ2: 13.3; 95% CI -1.1-1.5; p = 0.0001). Calcium acetate was the prefered PB in 47.1% of patients, lanthanum carbonate in 40%, sevelamer in 20.6% and aluminum hydroxide in 19.4%. The reasons claimed by patients for their negative ratings of PB were the type of dosage form, the taste, the number of tablets and gastric intolerance. Gastric intolerance and bad taste were more frequent in aluminum hydroxide patients (19.4% and 22.2%, respectively). Sevelamer received complaints about its dosage form because the tablets were too large and a large number of tablets were required (27.2%). 17.7% of patient who were taking lanthanum carbonate did not like the chewable tablets. Conclusion: patients who were taking binders that they did not like had worse serum P levels and were prescribed higher doses of binders. Knowing patients' preferences about the drugs prescribed may be a key factor in achieving adequate adherence to treatment (AU)

[Phosphorus binders: preferences of patients on haemodialysis and its impact on treatment compliance and phosphorus control]. / Captores del fósforo: preferencias de los pacientes en hemodiálisis y su repercusión sobre el cumplimiento del tratamiento y el control del fósforo.

INTRODUCTION: Non-adherence to phosphate binding (PB) medication may play a role in the difficulty in achieving the targets for phosphorus. We have a wide armamentarium of PB but preferences of patients are poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: to study the patients' preferences and beliefs regarding PB and their influence on adherence and serum phosphate. METHODS: A cross-sectional cohort study was performed. A total of 121 hemodialysis patients answered a specific questionnaire in which they were questioned about adherence, the type of PB they preferred and the reasons for their choice. All patients questioned tasted two or three PB. The consequence of non-adherence to PB was estimated indirectly by determination of serum phosphorus. RESULTS: Specific noncompliance with PB medication was recognized by 21.4% of patients. Patients non-adherent specifically to PB were more likely to have P levels >5.5 mg/dl (χ(2): 4.7; 95% CI 1.07-6.5; p = 0.03). Paradoxically, patients non-adherent showed greater knowledge of the use (χ(2): 17.3; 95% CI -2.2-10.1; p <0.0001) and importance of the drug (χ(2): 10.4; 95% CI -1.5-6.6; p = 0.001). The percentage of patients prescribed binders they did not like was 54.5%. Patients who were taking PB they did not like had a greater risk of having P levels >5.5 mg/dl) (χ(2): 13.3; 95% CI -1.1-1.5; p = 0.0001). Calcium acetate was the preferred PB in 47.1% of patients, lanthanum carbonate in 40%, sevelamer in 20.6% and aluminum hydroxide in 19.4%. The reasons claimed by patients for their negative ratings of PB were the type of dosage form, the taste, the number of tablets and gastric intolerance. Gastric intolerance and bad taste were more frequent in aluminum hydroxide patients (19.4% and 22.2%, respectively). Sevelamer received complaints about its dosage form because the tablets were too large and a large number of tablets were required (27.2%). 17.7% of patient who were taking lanthanum carbonate did not like the chewable tablets. CONCLUSION: patients who were taking binders that they did not like had worse serum P levels and were prescribed higher doses of binders. Knowing patients' preferences about the drugs prescribed may be a key factor in achieving adequate adherence to treatment.

[Investigation into the relationship between outpatient haemodialysis centres and referring hospitals in Spain]. / Encuesta sobre la relación existente entre centros de hemodiálisis extrahospitalarios y hospitales de referencia en España.

INTRODUCTION: To guarantee continuity and equity in the clinical assistance of patients on hemodialysis in extrahospitalary centers (EC) a close relationship and a good level of communication between them and their reference hospitals (RH) is essential. The aim of this study was to assess the present situation of this relationship in our country (Spain) so as to be able to detect improvement opportunities. METHODS: Descriptive and transversal study using two self-report anonymous surveys: one for EC (81 questions) and one for RH (56 questions) sent by e-mail to all Spanish EC and RH registered in the Spanish Society of Nephrology. RESULTS: We received answers from 80 EC and 30 RH. 70% of the EC were managed by multinational companies; only 16 % EC were placed in a hospital. 64% of the EC need to employ non-nephrological medical staff. Nearly 40% of the EC nephrologists also go on duty at their RH. More than three quarters of the EC nephrologists are alone during their workday. Bidirectional telephone communication is very frequent between EC and RH. Around a third of the patients sent from RH to EC arrive without current viral serology and/or without a functioning vascular access. Most of the patients sent from EC to RH bring an up-to-date complete medical report. 41,3 % of the EC answered that they were usually consulted by their RH doctor colleagues about decisions to be taken regarding their patients. Routine blood and other medical protocol tests of CE are well defined in the formal agreement with their RH in 65 % of the cases, although they can be modified by the EC through consensus with the RH in more than 50 % of the cases. 60 % of the EC can directly consult other specialists in the RH but more than 50 % need to do so through the RH nephrologist. Parenteral medication used in the ECs is mostly supplied by their RH, but a third of ECs have some limitations with uncommon or not concert-specified parenteral drugs. RHs refer that most of the vascular accesses are done in the hospital, whereas ECs say that this is true only in half of the cases. More than a third of the fistulae of predialysis patients are done in the ECs as part of their collaboration with RHs. The majority of ECs can share the decision about patients' inclusion in renal transplant waiting list. In only a fifth of the cases is there a common database between CE and RH, and less than half share common protocols or objectives. 62,5% of CEs participate with RHs in clinical trials. More than half of the dialysis private companies provide continuous training and education to their ECs personnel, either directly through the company or facilitating assistance to courses or congresses. CONCLUSIONS: Some of the relationship aspects that appear to be clearly improvable are: CEs nephrologist solitude and their limited access to continuous training and education, an adequate referral of the patients from the RHs, CEs nephrologist's autonomy at making consultations to specialists or their limitations when asking for hospital medications. A closer relationship between CEs and RHs is of the utmost importance in guaranteeing continuity and equity in the clinical assistance of our hemodialysis patients. The creation of a debate forum would favour discussion and common resolution of such aspects.

A case of endocarditis of difficult diagnosis in dialysis: could "pest" friends be involved?

We report a case of A. xylosoxidans endocarditis of larvate clinical presentation in a central venous catheter-dependent hemodialysis patient of difficult diagnosis and poor evolution despite a high index of suspicion and consequent assessment. A 50-year-old man on hemodialysis presented with inflammatory-malnutrition parameters during the months prior to diagnosis of endocarditis, whilst he was otherwise asymptomatic. No vegetations were detectable on his cardiac valves at repeated echocardiography until third transesophageal echocardiography was performed, and confirmed intraoperatively. On the occasion of positive peripheral blood culture for Alcaligenes (Achromobacter) xylosoxidans, the etiological diagnosis was retrospectively explained given his history of animal exposure - hunting rabbits using his pet ferrets. This bacterium is an emergent and resistant organism, mostly related to nosocomial infections and environmental water sources. Reservoirs include the microflora of the nasal cavity of rabbits and the dentogingival sulcus of ferrets. We presume that A. xylosoxidans endocarditis was transmitted from the patient's pets. It highlights the importance of early recognition of an inflammatory status and investigation of the underlying cause. Additionally, the causative bacterium emphasizes the importance of registering exposure to animals in CVC-dependent patients as well as the need for their awareness of hygienic precautions and the infectious risk associated to catheters.

Nephrotic syndrome as paraneoplastic manifestation of a primary pulmonary lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma.

We present a case of nephrotic syndrome secondary to a membranous glomerulonephritis (MG), in a nonsmoking female with a solitary pulmonary nodule, which did not show growth during 2 years of followup. A biopsy by videothoracoscopy showed a granulomatous non-neoplastic process with giant multinucleated cells. The appearance of a nephrotic syndrome and its interpretation as paraneoplastic revealed the existence of a primary pulmonary lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma (LELC), a very rare pulmonary tumor. After resection of tumor there was a complete recovery from the nephrotic syndrome. This case highlights how the investigation of paraneoplastic syndromes can help in the early diagnosis of some malignancies.

[Operation to remove tunnelled venous catheters in a dialysis unit. Is it possible to reverse the trend in their growing use?]. / Operación retirada de catéteres venosos tunelizados en una unidad de diálisis. ¿Es posible cambiar la tendencia en el uso creciente de éstos?

INTRODUCTION: Introduction In an attempt to reduce unnecessary central venous catheters (CVC) dependence in prevalent population, a "CVC removal" programme was initiated in our unit. The objective was to diminish the number of CVC and to analyze the causes of their insertion and maintenance. On 09/01/07, 38 out of 173 prevalent patients on hemodialysis. Methods were CVC dependant (21.9%): 16 incident patients (42,1%) and 22 (57,8%) prevalent patients. All of them were re-evaluated for permanent vascular access utilization, included those previously rejected for surgery. Physical, psychical and vascular aspects regarding each patient were taken into consideration. The following variables were age, Body mass index, time on hemodialysis, Charlson analyzed comorbidity index, DM or vascular comorbidities and number of vascular accesses created prior to CVC placement. In those patients in whom AVF creation was feasible, the following were registered after 18 months of 1.Primary failure rate. 2. Related complications. 3. up follow Percentage of usable AVF or AVG. 4. Percentage of removed CVC. 5. Mortality and hospitalization. The decision of no realization of a new vascular access and? Results maintenance of TVC was performed in 21 patients (55.2%). In 9 of them was decision of the nephrologists and the family. In 11 patients was decision of vascular surgeon due to vascular bed exhaustion. A permanent VA was achieved in 17 patients (44.7%), 50% of them was incident patients and 45% prevalent patients. The primary failure rate was 0%. The TVC was withdrawn in 11/17 (64.7%). Only 4 patients remain without TVC after 18 months of follow-up: 5 patients died (4 with a AVF functioning and 1 VA closure due to steal syndrome) and in 8 patients was mandatory to reintroduce the TVC again. Immediate complications after the surgery were: 1 severe haematoma, 2 infections and 2 severe sequestrations. 3 patients required hospital admission following complications directly related to VA. Mean time of free of TVC was 5.2 months (range: 0.7- 14.3 months). The mortality was 29,4% (5/17) in the group of patients with a new VA and 9,5% (2/21) in the other group(RR 3,19; IC 95%: 0,68-13,98; p: 0,11). No significant differences were observed between patients who transitioned to a permanent vascular access and those who remained TVC dependant in regards to age, gender, BMI, time on dialysis, DM, comorbidity or number of previous VA, Transition from CVC use to hospitalizations or mortality. Conclusions permanent vascular access is possible in prevalent patients in dialysis. Improvement was achieved by a modest amount, and after a prolonged process with gravel complications, some of which proved severe. Need for CVC dependence is confirmed in a high percentage of prevalent patients on dialysis. Comorbidity might have influenced the results. The quality standard should be adequate to reality of current population on hemodialysis.

Operation to remove tunnelled venous catheters in a dialysis unit. Is it possible to reverse the trend in their growing use?

Introduction: In an attempt to reduce unnecessary tunnelled venous catheters (TVC) dependence in a prevalent population, a "TVC removal" programme was initiated in our unit. The objective was to diminish the number of TVC and to analyze the causes of their insertion and continuation. Methods: On 09/01/07, 38 out of 173 prevalent patients on haemodialysis were TVC dependant (21.9%), 16 incident patients (42.1%) and 22 (57.8%) prevalent patients. All of them were re-evaluated for placement of permanent vascular access including those previously rejected for surgery. Physical, psychic and vascular aspects of each patient were taken into consideration. The following variables were collected; age, body mass index (BMI), time on haemodialysis, Charlson Comorbidity Index, DM and vascular comorbidities and number of vascular accesses created prior to TVC placement. In those patients in whom AVF creation was feasible, after 18 months of follow-up the following parameters were evaluated: 1.Primary failure rate. 2. Surgical complications. 3. Percentage of usable AVF or AVG. 4. Percentage of removed TVC. 5. Mortality and hospitalization. Results: The decision not to carry out a permanent vascular access and to maintain TVC was made in 21 patients (55.2%). For 9 of them this was decided by the nephrologists and the family and for the remaining 11 patients, by the vascular surgeon after all vascular options were exhausted. A permanent VA was achieved in 17 patients (44.7%), 50% of them were incident patients and 45% prevalent patients. The primary failure rate was 0%. The TVC was withdrawn in 11 patients out of 17 (64.7%). Only 4 patients remained without TVC after 18 months of follow-up: 5 patients died (4 with AVF functioning and 1 underwent AVF ligation due to steal syndrome) and for 8 patients it was necessary to reintroduce the TVC again. Immediate complications after surgery were: 1 tense haematoma, complicated with skin necrosis, 2 infections and 2 steel syndromes with one requiring fistula ligation. Three patients required hospital admission following complications directly related to VA. The average time free from TVC was 5.2 months (range: 0.7- 14.3 months). The mortality rate was 29.4% (5/17) in the group of patients with a new VA and 9.5% (2/21) in the other group (RR 3.19; IC 95%: 0.68-13.98; p: 0.11). No significant differences were observed between patients who transitioned to a permanent vascular access and those who remained TVC in age, gender, BMI, time on dialysis, DM, comorbidity or number of previous VA attempts, hospitalizations or mortality. Conclusions: Permanent vascular access was possible in prevalent dialysis patients but this was achieved in a modest number of patients after a prolonged period and not without complications, some of which severe. The need for TVC dependence was confirmed in a high percentage of prevalent patients on dialysis. Comorbidity might have influenced the results. The quality standard should be adapted to the actual population on haemodialysis (AU)

Introducción: En base a la premisa de que los pacientes portadores de catéteres tienen un peor pronóstico que los portadores de FAV, las guías de acceso vascular (AV) plantean unos objetivos ambiciosos (< 10% de Catéteres venosos tunelizados (CVT). En un intento de cambiar esta tendencia creciente en el uso de CVT iniciamos la “operación retirada de CVT”. Métodos: Al inicio del estudio 38 de los 173 pacientes dializados en la unidad lo hacían mediante un CVT (21.9%): 16 pacientes (42,1%) incidentes y 22 (57,8%) prevalentes. Se evaluaron aspectos físicos, psíquicos y vasculares de cada paciente portador de CVT. Se recogió edad, Indice de masa corporal, tiempo en HD, índice de comorbilidad de charlson (ICM), presencia de cardiopatía y diabetes mellitas, y número de AV previos. Tras 18 meses de seguimiento se evaluó la tasa de fallo primario, las complicaciones de la cirugía, el porcentaje de AV puncionables, el porcentaje de CVT retirados, la mortalidad y los ingresos hospitalarios Resultados: En 21 pacientes (55,2%) la decisión fue la no realización de un nuevo AV y el mantenimiento del CVT. En 9 pacientes por decisión del nefrólogo y familiares y en 11 por decisión del cirujano ante el agotamiento del lecho vascular. En 17 pacientes (44,7%) se realizó una FAV(50% incidentes y 45% prevalentes). La tasa de fallo primario fue del 0%. Se retiró el CVT al 64,7% (11/17). 18 meses después solo 4 pacientes permanecían sin CVT: 5 pacientes habían fallecido (4 con FAV funcionante y 1 con CVT tras ligadura de FAV por robo severo) y en 8 hubo que reintroducir de nuevo el CVT. Las complicaciones inmediatas de la cirugía vascular fueron: Un hematoma a tensión con necrosis de piel secundaria que requirió ingreso; dos síndrome de robo, uno que se solucionó con ejercicio y otro que precisó cierre quirúrgico; 2 infecciones, una en relación con hiperaflujo y trombosis de cava superior que precisó cierre quirúrgico. El tiempo medio libre de CVT fue de 5,2 meses (rango: 0,7- 14,3 meses).La mortalidad fue 29,4% (5/17) en el grupo en el que se actúo y 9,5% (2/21) en el otro grupo (RR 3,19; IC al 95%: 0,68-13,98; p: 0,11). Los pacientes a los que se realizó una FAV no mostraron diferencias significativas con el grupo al que no se le realizó una FAV en cuanto a edad, obesidad, Tiempo en HD, ICM, DM, sexo, nº AV, ingresos ni mortalidad. Conclusiones: Es posible mejorar la tendencia en el uso de catéteres permanentes, en un grado discreto y a lo largo de un proceso prolongado y no exento de complicaciones, algunas de ellas graves. En un porcentaje elevado de pacientes se confirma la imposibilidad de retirar el CVT. La patología asociada puede haber influido en los resultados. Los estándares de calidad deberían adecuarse a la realidad de la población que estamos tratando (AU)

Allergy to latex and repeated vascular access thrombosis in haemodialysis

No disponible

No disponible

[Superficialization of autologous vascular access: an alternative to the use of vascular prostheses and permanent catheters]. / Superficialización de accesos venosos autólogos: una alternativa al uso de prótesis vasculares y catéteres permanentes.

INTRODUCTION: We review our experience with autologous veins Superficialization (Spf), to establish the actual possibilities of this kind of vascular access in our area. METHODS: Between January/2001 and January/2008, Spf was performed in 48 patients. Mean follow-up time was 18.8 (0.2-75.7) months. Primary failure rate was recorded; primary and secondary survival were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method; and its possible associations with several variables were analyzed. RESULTS: the maturity rate was 97.9%; and the rate of primary failure 2.0%. After Spf, mean time of primary and secondary survival were 65 months and 67 months, respectively. Four vascular thromboses were observed. None of the presurgery variables analyzed (age; sex; diabetes mellitus; ipsilateral central catheter; the number of previous VA attempts; and obesity) were significantly associated with maturity rate, primary or secondary survivals. CONCLUSION: the Spf can be a good option alternative to the use of prosthetic grafts or permanent central vascular catheters.

Superficialization of autologous vascular access: an alternative to the use of vascular prostheses and permanent catheters

Introduction: We review our experience with autologous veins Superficialization (Spf), to establish the actual possibilities of this kind of vascular access in our area. Methods: Between January/2001 and January/2008, Spf was performed in 48 patients. Mean follow-up time was 18.8(0.2-75.7) months. Primary failure rate was recorded; primary and secondary survival were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method; and its possible associations with several variables were analyzed. Results: the maturity rate was 97.9%; and the rate of primary failure 2.0%. After Spf, mean time of primary and secondary survival were 65months and 67 months, respectively. Four vascular thromboses were observed. None of the presurgery variables analyzed (age; sex; diabetes mellitus; ipsilateral central catheter; the number of previous VA attempts; and obesity) were significantly associated with maturity rate, primary or secondary survivals. Conclusion: the Spf can be a good option alternative to the use of prosthetic grafts or permanent central vascular catheters (AU)

Introducción: se analizan los resultados de la Superficialización (Spf ) de venas autólogas para establecer sus posibilidades reales en nuestro medio. Métodos: la Spf se realizó en 48 pacientes. El tiempo medio de seguimiento fue de 18,8 (0,2-75,7) meses . Se calculó la tasa de fallo primario, la Supervivenc ia (SV) primaria y la SV secundaria, y se estudiaron las posibles asociaciones con distintas variables . Resultados : la tasa de maduración fue del 97,9%, y la tasa de fallo primario, del 2,0%. El tiempo medio de SV primaria t ras la superficialización fue de 65,5 ± 4,8 meses, y el de SV secundaria, de 66,7 ± 4,3 meses . Ninguna de las variables preintervención estudiadas (edad, sexo, Diabetes Mel l i tus [DM] , presenc ia de catéter ipsilateral , número de Acceso Vascular (AV) u obesidad) tuvieron un impacto sobre las mismas. Se detectaron cuatro trombosis. Conclusión: la Spf de venas autólogas puede ser un método alternativo aceptable a la colocación de una prótesis vascular o un catéter (AU)

Viral serology inhaemodialysis outpatients What is reasonable to request?

No disponible

No disponible